It says, “I represent Jenetta Brantley concerning your repeated publication and dissemination of false and defamatory statements concerning Ms.
Brantley, her professional qualifications as an audio engineer, and her work involving the C-Tow recording connected to >> I represent Jenetta Brantley concerning your repeated publication and dissemination of false and defamatory statements concerning Ms.
Brantley, her professional qualifications as an audio engineer, and her work involving the C-Tow recording connected to the Nolan Wales investigation.
That is the opening line of a formal cease and desist letter sent to a nonprofit organization called the United Cajun Navy.
Think of a credential hanging on an office wall, a degree, a license, proof of expertise, and then picture someone walking past that wall and turning the frame face down.
Not because the credential was fake, but because acknowledging it would collapse the entire story they had already decided to tell.
The paperwork already knew.
>> is because this video is about them still telling lies, okay?
Jenetta Brantley’s legal team sends a cease and desist to the United Cajun Navy cuz she said they harᴀssed her, calling causing her emotional distress, and that they some liars.
Now, the thing about it is >> That letter concerns Jenetta Brantley, an audio engineer whose name became attached to the Nolan Wales case after she enhanced a publicly available recording.
The recording in question is known as the C-Tow call.
Brantley did not create it.
She did not leak it.
She processed what was already public, and for that, she is now the center of a defamation dispute.
>> discussing Ms.
Ms.
Brantley’s audio work.
The The United Cajun Navy stated, “That lady who doctored the original C-Tow call is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living.
She made the whole thing up.
>> The United Cajun Navy published a statement that, according to the letter, reads as follows: “The lady who doctored the original C-Tow call is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living.
She made the whole thing up.
Not a critique of method, not a disagreement with interpretation, a direct attack on her professional existence.”
>> Robert that a friend was coming to tow the boat for free.
These statements are not merely criticism, disagreement, or protected opinion.
They communicate specific factual á´€ssertions about Ms.
Brantley that are false and that directly attack her professional reputation, honesty, integrity, and credibility.
>> The letter responds with a sharp legal distinction.
“These statements are not merely criticism, disagreement, or protected opinion.
They communicate specific factual á´€ssertions about Ms.
Brantley that are false and that directly attack her professional reputation, honesty, integrity, and credibility.
In plain terms, side opinion is protected, fabrication is not.”
>> Mrs.
Brantley is an audio engineer.
Your statement otherwise is false.
Your statement that Mrs.
Brantley is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living is false.
>> And the evidence presented is concrete.
“Mrs.
Brantley is an audio engineer.
Your statement otherwise is false.
Your statement that Mrs.
Brantley is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living is false.
>> false.
Ms.
Brantley possesses documented academic credentials relevant to her possessed I’m sorry, profession, including a bachelor’s degree in music production from Full Sail University, through which she received formal education and training in audio engineering and related disciplines, as well as a master’s degree in entertainment business from Full Sail University.
See
Attached trans- >> The letter then lists documentation, a bachelor’s degree in music production from Full Sail University with formal education and training in audio engineering and related disciplines, a master’s degree in entertainment business from the same insтιтution, professional history documented and verified through IMDb where she is identified as a professional in the sound department for television and film projects.
>> subjective opinion and the quality of her work.
About the quality of her work.
It is factual á´€ssertion concerning her education and profession and it is false.
The Texas Supreme Court has recognized that statements falsely impugning a person’s personal qualifications can support a defamation claim.
Woo!
>> The legal threshold is not vague.
The Texas Supreme Court has recognized that statements falsely impugning a person’s personal qualifications can support a defamation claim.
This is not a personality feud.
It is a question of whether you can publicly erase someone’s credentials without consequence.